Mental graffiti of a sporadically sarcastic rat who's finally quit the UK's race and now Canadian Citizen on the wet coast of British Columbia, Canada. Resigned to a certain sense of all the posts on this blog having a particular quality of déjà vu. Again.
All written material Copyright Bill Sticker 2007-2011,
whatever.
Links are fine, but the words are mine
Howls of derisive laughter about the Cleggeron saying that because of fears highlighted over the problems at the Japanese Fukushima Nuclear power plant, more modern nuclear power stations will possibly not be built in Britain. Oh my giddy aunt! Where do my ex-compatriots find these people?
Is Britain on a the edge of a major subduction zone like Japan? No.
Does Britain need more generating capacity over the next five to ten years? Yes.
Can Britains current power needs be met solely by 'renewables' like wind or solar, or will they ever be? No.
Very well, you'll freeze.
As elder sibling reminds me every time we talk - "The lunatics are in charge of the Asylum." I cannot but help but agree.
I know we get more power outages than average out here in the Canadian boonies, but deliberately running down a power infrastructure for idealogical reasons? Now I know I've said that most UK administrators couldn't run a bath, but this just takes the whole pack of chocolate coated Hob-Nobs. Now they're admitting it in public? I'd be rolling on the floor laughing, but I've still got family back there.
Send that man a straitjacket and a trip to the rubber room. Major league facepalm territory.
Saw this article about radiation and food over at Wattsupwiththat and fell about laughing. The article points out that the levels of background radiation in naturally grown foodstuffs, like bananas, are higher than we think. For example;
In fact most foods contain some form of radioactivity. This is perfectly natural. The world is filled with various kinds of radioactivity. It occurs regardless of human activity.
One of the figures quoted is our total exposure to radiation in a year is in the region of 360 millirems a year. Before you go running off to berate others about atom bomb tests, remember that a single transatlantic flight can expose you to about 4 extra millirems a year, whereas dosage from atmospheric pre ban treaty nuclear tests has been calculated overall at 1 millirem a year. Moving to a location 1000 feet above sea level exposes you to an extra 5 millirems a year. That's not including radiation from the soil and rock underneath your feet. Like granite? High natural background radiation just from that fancy counter top in your kitchen.
Next time some anxiety prone goes off at me about the wickedness of nuclear power stations, food residues and sterilising with Gamma radiation, I think I'll just ask them about how many bananas they eat.
Talk about being behind the curve. Widely reported amongst the blogs, but picked up from wattsupwiththat.com, this quotation from BBC's Radio Four programme, 'The Moral Maze'.
Now that is so downright offensive to anyone who has quite reasonable doubts about the veracity of 'Climate Change Science' I don't even know where to begin. It was bad enough being lumped by ignorant media pundits into the same corner as historical revisionists who denied that the WW2 slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, Disabled and homosexuals happened, but with paedophiles? I can forgive blinkered ignorance, and even stupidity. However, that sort of insult borders on unforgivable. It's the kind of ill considered remark that richly deserves a punch in the mouth. On the other hand, perhaps that is the reaction craved. "OO look at the bad man mummy, he hit me!" If it wasn't so politically correct and infantile it might be funny.
There is a better way which will be more effective recompense for the offence and provocation offered. Taken from one of the penultimate songs from the Who's Rock opera 'Tommy' the line goes; "Let's forget you, better still."
Mister Buerk, you owe a lot of people an apology for that ill considered and unpleasant remark. Not that any mealy mouthed insincere public offerings without your immediate dismissal will be enough to atone. Now get out of that Moral Maze.
Update:Cranmer thinks that Buerk was lampooning colleagues who routinely make the same type of assertion. Having listened to the linked clip twice, I'm not inclined to agree. Although having written that I don't listen to Radio 4 or watch the propaganda mill that BBC TV has become, and have not done so for several years before leaving the UK. I leave that for stronger stomachs.
Addendum: Lets face it, if someone can get booted out of their job for saying 'jungle drums' when casually referring to a rumour mill, then why should someone else not be sacked for comparing those who do not agree with them to paedophiles or similar? Lampoon or not.
This is the problem with all this 'Green' energy. Requiring large subsidies for the base installation, it delivers very poor 'bang for buck' throughout the installation lifecycle (Lifetime of the installation). This can be demonstrated by the poor energy returns / efficiency of Wind Farms. Now companies are setting up 'Solar Farms' in Cornwall? They must be sucking up subsidies as fast as the printing presses can spin.
I know Cornwall and its climate quite well. I have friends down there, and walked it's hills and coast paths since boyhood. From May to October there is a reasonable average of around 7 hours a day sunlight. if of course it's not raining or the skies are that awful unremitting grey for days on end. Even in midsummer. 1989 I think was a case in point. I was walking the coast path carrying a fifty pound backpack and it rained so much over four days I reckon I was packing an extra thirty pounds of water at one point. What the hell, I was a lot younger and fitter then, but that's a story for another day.
My point is that weather is not consistent. There are sunny years, and not so sunny years, so building 'Solar Farms' will probably deliver less power than claimed and thus require bigger subsidies, driving the price of electricity per kilowatt/hour upwards. Rather like Wind Power has.
So far, all we've seen from 'Green' sources of power and 'Green' jobs (Most of which are on the taxpayer dollar) is increased cost and poor delivery. Wind Turbine manufacture has all but disappeared from the UK, so those 'Green' jobs are no longer there. The turbines themselves demonstrably deliver single percentage efficiency. Add to that the global climate, which appears to be in a cooling phase, which some have predicted will last another 20-30 years. So an even lower overall deliverable from Solar / Wind and greater need for subsidy will result.
Spain has already hit the buffers on this one, and the UK looks like following suit. How long will it be until scales finally fall from eyes and certain over hyped technologies are ditched? My pessimistic gut feeling tells me it may come under the heading of 'too late', and all too soon.
Update: Some of the suppliers are upset at the prospects of public subsidy costs their gravy train being derailed and are threatening to sue. Looks like UK 'Green' policy has been caught with its trousers round its ankles. As usual.
You know, what with suras in the Al'Quran forbidding the murder of innocents or suicide, I don't think there's really a paradise for Islamist suicide bombers. Just a one way ticket to hell.
Boom! Don't pass 'Go', don't collect 72 virgins (Or raisins), no milk or honey. Simply straight on down to burn for eternity. In kit form.
It's just a pity they wantonly kill so many other poor SOB's of all creeds and colours. It's all so bloody pointless, and only gives the powers that be more excuse to crack down on everyone.
Isn't this just a first class indication of the intellectual level of the CAGW / man made climate change / disruption / whatever true believers? So dumb they don't know what water is?
Seriously. If anyone has the names collected on that petition, I'll post it. Unaltered, with links to the organisation and facebook pages of the relevant delegates if I can.
I don't get it. Why bomb Stockholm? The Swedes are a pleasant lot, and are neck and neck with the Canadians in a politeness arms race. If there was a politeness Olympics, Sweden and Canada would be neck and neck for most of the Gold medals with a tie breaker based on tolerance and hospitality. So the cartoonist who once drew a funny cartoon of a religious leader lives there, so what? Their forces are committed to pulling out of Afghanistan in 2014, even if there are only a grand total of 500 odd actually there. It's hardly a US style 'surge' is it?
You might as well set the Vatican on fire because one Catholic gave you bad service in a department store. It's the disproportionate nature of the act that gets me. In addition, the problem with these acts of indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets is that they give politicians the excuse to keep troops in the area under dispute. If the bombings stopped, there would be no reason for the troops to stay in the 'stan. So, no reason for bombings. Or am I being terribly naive here? Mind you, as my e-friend Umm Yasmin rightly points out, it's Muslims who bear the brunt of the crazies. It's just the sheer pointlessness of it all that scrolls my knurd.
As for the 'domination' of one religiuous creed over all, to expect everyone to share your belief system isn't simply unrealistic, it's insane. Then, as God pointed out to me last week over our customary beer and fishing session, that's religious types for you. "Nothing to do with me." He said.
Have just read Monckton's report on the shenanigans down at Cancun courtesy of Jo Nova. Apparently the United Nations want our money to give to 'poor' countries on the back of the still unproven (and never will be) bandwagon of climate change / disruption nonsense.
A treaty is no good unless ratified, and while I would like to see 'world peace' as much as anyone, the UN is not the vehicle. Let's face it, if the UN were a motor vehicle, it would qualify for a 'cash for clunkers' or 'retire my ride' program. It's way too heavy on the gas, the performance could best be described as 'lumbering', and the transmission is shot. Time for the scrapyard.
As for the money. Well you guys didn't ask for my consent, so it is not given. I'll be campaigning for the non-ratification of any treaty. The way I feel about this demand for money is, if the cohorts of Bin Laden were to drop an airliner onto the UN building in New York while it was in full session I think I'd cheer (Providing only suicide bombers were on board).
The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies.
Screw the UN. Screw your 'World Government'. You don't speak for us.
This is one of those 'Thank God I don't live there any more' posts. So If such views offend, pass on by, you'll find nothing of interest here.
Whenever I read the news from the UK, I'm always struck by a feeling of 'What the hell are they doing this / that for?' It's like there is some massive cognitive dissonance going on about how an economy operates. Elder sibling tells me repeatedly that the 'lunatics are in charge of the asylum' and all I can do is stare in wonderment and even venture a modicum of astonished disbelief.
The land of my birth is seemingly engaged in a self destruct where personal wealth and ambition is seen as fundamentally 'bad'. Taken to its logical extreme this philosophy would mean the collapse of the economy. The end of the City of London as a Financial Centre, and subsequent shortfall in tax revenue. Seeing as that's where the money-go-round fuelling the UK economy is based, I'm inclined to look at all the whining about 'Eeevil Bankers' and protests against Employers who generate income for thousands as more than a smidge short sighted.
Whether you like it or not, with the ever creeping reductions in manufacturing and innovation across the UK, and the expansion of the public sector and client state, there is an increasing imbalance which will require a massive correction. Why? Because Big Government, touted as 'Good' by those of a left of centre persuasion, is, as I have written both here and on this blogs predecessor, unsustainable. When it comes to money, Government is a wealth absorber rather than a wealth creator. Mainly because it is horrendously inefficient. As a form of 'Wealth redistribution', Government delivers very poor bang for buck, and besides, if you've made your money fair and square, why should you give it to people / causes you don't want to support? It's like Electric cars. Despite a century of failure of the Electric vehicle as a mass market mode of travel, people who can't do joined up thinking keep on wasting money on the bloody things.
Same for Governments 'spending the way out of recession'. It won't work because there's too much wastage in the system. Too many chair polishers who need to draw salary. Too many committee members who, because of 'fairness' have to have their say and let off so much self esteem they cloud every issue under discussion. Little people afraid of third world tinpot dictators. Or is that a more succinct view of Government in the UK? Once a world power, now a third world country. No-one's listening Bill. Rant all you want against the stupidity of the world. You don't live there any more. Thank goodness.
Wind warning for the Eastern side of Vancouver Island means the rain and wind are howling round the houses this evening. I can hear it washing the last of last weeks warble gloaming into the ditches. Never mind, we're due for some more sometime around the weekend. Feels like that first snowfall was just a rehearsal.
Inside the Sticker household all is cosy. Log fire pumping out heat while I laze on the sofa. Dog snoozing at my feet, ear half cocked at the clicking of my old laptops keyboard. I'm having a nice evening after a pleasant supper of Cottage pie. Although if you listen to some creeps currently chuntering at Cancun, that should be a crime. They want WW2 style rationing to 'save the planet'.
Well I've got an idea, why don't we ration climate conferences? You know, on the WW2 basis of 'is your journey really necessary?' Let's have austerity level budgets for certain faculties. Post office bicycles only for tenured professors, research assistants have to get a bus with all the heaters removed. Perhaps if it's getting so warm, globally speaking, let's make some 'carbon friendly' savings by cutting off the heating and air conditioning to particular Climate research faculties. Set an example you chaps. Put your money where your mouth is. Show us how to live in austerity. Do some actual physical poverty research to calculate real-world impacts. A proper empirical study should do the trick. Say a ten year programme to monitor specific effects of long term austerity programmes. This is stuff we need to know. Do climate scientists make good popsicle material when you've removed all their doors and windows? I'm sure there are many who'd like to see what happens to those at Hadley CRU and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change when the notorious East Anglian 'lazy wind' blows unfettered through their department all Winter. This is cutting edge stuff here, and in addition it's truly, eco-virtuously 'carbon neutral'. Come on guys, show us how it's done. You never know, we might even follow your example. On the other hand of course.........
In the meantime, I'll just keep on being cosy. Ho hum. Time for another log on the fire. Life is so hard.
From the seemingly never ending archive of warble gloaming pantomime, this blast from the past. The view from my kitchen window 21st November 2010 around eight in the morning.... Yeah, right....
Temperatures went below minus five Celsius this afternoon, and are prophesied to hit below minus 12 tonight. More warble gloaming expected on Friday and Saturday. My snow shovel is at the ready, all weather tyres are on the Battlebus, and the log store is full of seasoned wood. Warm clothing has been purchased. About the only thing we haven't got for the cold weather is a pair of skis and we're on the same damn latitude as here.
Picked up via Drudge. They employ perverts at airport security checks now?
Is this real? What half witted excuse for a perverted paedophile thought they should strip search a child in public for heavens sake? What the hell do the TSA think they're doing? There's a classic class action waiting for an ambitious Tort lawyer right there.
It goes without saying that the child in question was not an 'ethnic'. The cack-handed TSA is becoming America's shame.
Our girls are coming over for Christmas, and one connection on a very reasonably priced flight, meant that they would have to go through such a security check as the connection was at Chicago's O'Hare airport. Needless to say, we went for the very much more expensive direct flight option. My Sister in Law will be here for Christmas, and she's talking about driving all the way from Minnesota rather than submit to these unnecessary procedures.
For crying out loud, one guy got arrested for stripping as a protest at the crotch level pat downs. This situation has gone past satire into WTF! territory without breaking step.
One is minded to remark at this point that Israeli flyers have the highest security risk in the world, and their checks are far less intrusive, and far more cost effective.
P.S. Here's the Eyetube version if Youtube shut the vid down.
Much as I share some of the widespread distaste for Bankers' economic misdeeds, I can't help but feel Holby's latest wheeze won't work, even if it is sanctioned by such luminaries as Eric Cantona.
The plan appears to be that everyone should go to their bank or building society on the 7th of December 2010 and withdraw as much money as they can, thus causing the banking system to implode or collapse. The idea presumably is to somehow punish all those greedy bankers for causing the current economic crisis.
If anyone can be bothered to read this, might I say that everyone withdrawing all their money might turn out to be a massive economic own goal.
My reasoning is as follows; Because money is the means of exchange, it's value is relative. In itself, it is not a commodity, but rather an enumeration of work done. Linking it's value to a specific commodity, say gold, is only useful as long as gold is esteemed at a certain value. If gold were to become worthless because it was no longer considered as a valid means of exchange, then any currency linked to it would also lose it's purchasing power. Therefore; money is not a commodity in itself, more a measure of relative value. In short; a currency is only worth what is agreed. If enough people decide that a currency is worthless and sell lots of it for other currencies, its value drops like a rock into a gravitational singularity.
Furthermore, if people do like Holby suggests and withdraw all their money, in order to safeguard the interests of those people who own the banks and various politicians will take steps to 'safeguard the money supply' by ordering the printing of more money so that the banks don't go short. The resulting inflation will only hurt those who withdraw their money only to stuff it into a metaphorical mattress. Likewise, buying items that may hold their worth against inflation, such as land or other commodities, will only protect their investment so long as those commodities are 'agreed' to be worth that much.
So making an assumption that Holby and chums do manage to crash the banking system, the money they've withdrawn, without the backing institutions as personified by those 'eeevil bankers' automatically becomes valueless, and all the poor buggers still with savings lose everything. Take enough money out of an economic system and you end up rather like in Weimar Germany. Because, rather like Space and Time are inextricably bound together, so are Banks and Money. Whether you like it or not, the Banks are the money.
Kind of like trying to stop time, and then finding out all the rules supporting your little pocket of space / time no longer apply, and so by proxy, neither do you. Especially true for those with an urban lifestyle and no real material holdings in land or foodstuffs. That's if you ask me. Not that anyone will of course.
Not that anyone really reads my frequent forays into frustration with the world, but then this blog is my daily toxic thought dump, a venting of the frustrations that would otherwise cost me a fortune in shirts and furniture.
For example, the latest little annoyance is the news that we may all be subject to interrogation over a 'happiness quotient'. Which ironically may well become a cause of more unhappiness than intended, the law of unintended consequences being what it is.
Imagine the following scenario. Our hero Bill Sticker, humming a happy little tune to himself as he works, has his train of thought momentarily interrupted by the telephone ringing. Being an innocent soul (Heh), he picks up the handset and answers cheerily, as he is wont to do. "Y'ello!" (Don't ask me why, I just do, okay?) Only to be met by one of those awful autodialler pauses before a young female telemarketers voice greets him. At this juncture, Bill's usual cheery demeanour undergoes a sudden sea change. Driven by a sinking prescient feeling, his brow tightens, his eyes redden, teeth clench and muscles knot. "Hi!" Says the friendly telemarketer. "I'm conducting a survey on people's happiness." "I was fine until you called." Vouchsafes the hero of this piece. "Oh." Says the manically chirpy telemarketer. "Good day." Bill speaks in tones of disdainful dismissal before shutting off the call. He stops for a cup of tea before settling down to work once more. An hour later, he is busily 'in the zone' and humming contentedly as he works. Again, the phone rings, again he answers it cheerily before the autodialler pause kicks off another mood swing. "Hello" Says the chirpy person on the other end of the line. "Is that Mr Willyam Striker?" "Sort of." Responds our hero dubiously. Third hand mailing lists strike again. "This is the UK Government calling to see if you're okay." "Why?" Huh? A transatlantic call for this? "Well we just want to know how happy you are." I was until you called me. "Why?" Is this taxpayer funded? "Well, er, it's important to us." "Why?" You're using taxpayer dollar for this idiocy aren't you? "Well, it's part of a National survey on happiness. Can you tell me on a score of one to ten how happy you are, using one as very unhappy and ten as very happy indeed?" "Right now?" "Yes please." "You interrupted my work, which I was quite enjoying, to ask me a stupid childish question like how happy I am?" "Well..." "Minus ten." You just had to ask didn't you? "Sorry?" "On a happiness score of one to ten, I'm telling you my happiness score, right at this moment, is minus ten." Now go away. "I can't report that." "It is the only figure I am willing to give you. I was content, now I am not." "So you're saying this call has caused you discontent?" "Yes." Now leave me in peace, please. "How would you score your contentedness when you were content, then?" "AAAAAAARRRGGHHHHH!!!!!" A sudden dopplering noise followed by a crash of plastic and a dying electronic bleep signals the premature death of an innocent telephone handset. There is the sound of ripping cloth, a deafening snarl or pure rage, followed by the heavy breathing grunt of bellicose incandescence along with smashing masonry and receding heavy footsteps. Dog hides under sofa.
You know, if a government tries to meddle in people's lives at this level while the economy is in the toilet and public spending is still out of control, I'd say they'd just passed their sell by date.
Yeah but guys, isn't this a case of shooting the messenger(s)? If your damn postulation carried any weight then at least some of your predictions should have come true by now. Shouldn't they?
Maybe these soi-disant 'climate scientists' should be revising their alleged 'theory' to reflect reality instead of going on the warpath against honest doubters.
Sounds like someone has seen their funding in danger of slipping away.
This video shows how the rot goes right to the top. Reduce 'carbon' emissions by ten percent says Cameron. He and Huhne thoroughly support the '10:10 initiative'. So does David Cameron want to see children killed over a difference of opinion as well? Well do you Mr Cameron? Personally, I don't think he gives a shit one way or the other. The whole 'Carbon reduction' thing is just a sop, a pseudo green 'vote spinner', a cheap soundbite to spoon feed the unreasoning and gullible.
The thing that truly bothers me is, how can people in responsible positions become so isolated from reality? I'm all for lessening pollution, which Carbon Dioxide is not; being an inert, colourless trace gas and product of combustion / breathing, but the other pollutions continue. The cyclic change in climate should be the least of our worries. Although we in the west now enjoy cleaner air and water, all we've done is export our industrial pollution to Indian and China, rather like all the 'anti-cruelty' movement achieved was to export meat production to countries with lower standards of animal husbandry than the UK.
To Pratchettise; the 'CO2 drives climate' meme is a 'lie to morons'. One of those untruths you tell people because you don't think they're capable of understanding the real subject matter. It's also easier than admitting that you don't really know.
I know I'm only one voice shouting in the wilderness, but if even I can see what's wrong, how come people who are supposed to be better informed not get it? Maybe they're so surrounded by their courtiers and sycophants that no-one close has the guts to tell them they're wrong. Oh well, it'll all end in tears, and they won't be mine. Well, not as many as there might be at any rate.
Well, I've said it before, and I'll keep on saying it; Cameron is the new Heath. I'm embarrassed to even share the same nationality.
Originally this post was supposed to be a script treatise on the plight of a Western Australian family. Unfortunately I got stuck. The sticking point was defined by this question; Okay, I'm talking about taking the fight to the enemy, but who exactly are the 'enemy'?
This evening my question was answered; the enemy is the person so opposed to your way of life that they want you dead. The frothing Jihadi's that think killing innocent people randomly will advance their cause. The man who plots murder against his neighbours because their fence is six inches too high for his liking. The crazy cat lover who puts razor blades in bits of steak and throws them over the hedge because next doors dog barks a little too much during the day. The people who ram airliners into buildings full of civilians in peacetime because they think God wants them to (He doesn't). The gloriously, wonderfully, arse-bitingly crazy people who hate the world because the world doesn't do exactly what they tell it to, right this minute.
The ones who want all voices but theirs silenced by the oblivion of eternity.
Like anyone associated with the making of this video. In it's own way classic fantasy murder porn. Singularly round so many twists it's spinning like an electric drill.
The problem is that the crazy people who think it's okay to murder people over a difference of opinion about what changes the climate look just like you and me. This is why they must be engaged by truth, defeated by empiricism and held up to public opprobrium. Thereafter they should be publicly ignored, boycotted and snubbed. That is a far more apposite end than the death they wish upon those they label 'Skeptics' and 'Deniers'.
The 'enemy' I sought to define. The haters of humanity. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Update: Since the script was written by Richard Curtis, the film is supposedly 'funny'. Yeah, the kind of funny that thinks tying firecrackers to kittens and puppies is 'funny'. It's the cackling jollity of crazed old women found knitting in front of guillotines during the French Revolutions 'Terror'. The cretinous laughter of those who have no moral braking mechanism in their psyche.
In a way it's a superb own goal because it shows the eco-whacko's in their true light. The bunny huggers who turn out to be 'bunny boilers'.
The thing it, this movie was apparently meant to be shown in schools. Errr.... say that again? In schools? You're shittin' me - right? WTF? Hell, I'm all for freedom of expression, but sick propaganda in the classroom? No. Surely not.
No doubt the parodies will shortly be hitting Youtube.
Apparently, according to Jo Nova's blog, there's an EU Directive to the effect that if other countries do not take on the whole Cap 'n Trade / Emissions Trading malarkey by 2012 then their airlines will not be allowed in EU airspace.
This is intelligent isn't it? Or rather it's life Jim, but not as we know it. In order to enter EU airspace, Airlines will have to purchase a 'Licence to pollute', the cost of which they will pass on to the travelling, importing / exporting rest of humanity. Great say I, another pointless increase in the cost of getting around. Another witless and unnecessary bar to commerce. No doubt other countries will demand some kind of reciprocal agreement, charging European Airlines a fee to enter their airspace. Guess who gets handed the bill? Us. The travelling plebs. As usual.
There are so many things wrong with this Directive, that it makes me sweat just to think about it. Mind you, I can see the opportunities too.
Say the EU is stupid enough to implement this half assed nonsense, would other countries reciprocate with their own ban on EU aircraft? The USA and Canada might, which means some kind of halfway house would need to be established where airlines from North America and Europe could land and transfer. Iceland maybe? Great for the Icelanders as they would get to rake in all those juicy landing fees from both sides of the pond. Not to mention the stopovers. Not so good for those with business or holiday homes either side of the Atlantic. Are you a UK citizen with a holiday home near Disneyworld? Oh dear. The cost / logistics of flying will get more complicated / expensive from 2012 onwards.
Thinking about it, there must be vested interests from Frankfurt to Paris desperate to recoup their losses on Carbon Trading, which at the last look was pretty much flatlining. Especially over at the Chicago Exchange, which laid half it's staff off earlier this summer. One suspects that the situation in Europe isn't that much better. If a market crashes from say $7 per unit to .05 a unit inside eighteen months, then someone, somewhere has lost big time. I understand the carbon trading market is heavily subsidised, although I'm not sure how much sense that makes, economically speaking; yet sometime a line has to be drawn under a project. A decision has to be made not to waste any more money on a dead duck, but threatening this kind of ban is like pointing a 12 Gauge shotgun at your own foot and loosing off both barrels.
Last night Mrs S and I were watching a documentary about Ireland, and she pointed at the screen and said; "Bill, that's where we're going for our Wedding Anniversary." At the time I agreed with enthusiasm. This morning, I'm not so sure.
Howls of derisive laughter about the Cleggeron saying that because of fears highlighted over the problems at the Japanese Fukushima Nuclear power plant, more modern nuclear power stations will possibly not be built in Britain. Oh my giddy aunt! Where do my ex-compatriots find these people?
Posts
